Paediatric radiation therapy without anaesthesia - Are the children moving?

PURPOSE: Children who require radiation therapy (RT) should ideally be treated awake, without anaesthesia, if possible. Audiovisual distraction is a known method to facilitate awake treatment, but its effectiveness at keeping children from moving during treatment is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate intrafraction movement of children receiving RT while awake. METHODS: In this prospective study, we measured the intrafraction movement of children undergoing treatment with fractionated RT, using pre- and post-RT cone beam CT (CBCT) with image matching on bony anatomy. Study CBCTs were acquired at first fraction, weekly during RT, and at last fraction. The primary endpoint was the magnitude of vector change between the pre- and post-RT scans. Our hypothesis was that 90 % of CBCT acquisitions would have minimal movement, defined as <3 mm for head-and-neck (HN) treatments and <5 mm for non-HN treatments. RESULTS: A total of 65 children were enrolled and had evaluable data across 302 treatments with CBCT acquisitions. Median age was 11 years (range, 2-18; 1st and 3rd quartiles 7 and 14 years, respectively). Minimal movement was observed in 99.4 % of HN treatments and 97.2 % of non-HN treatments. The study hypothesis of >90 % of evaluations having minimal movement was met. Children who were age >11 years moved less at initial evaluation but tended to move more as a course of radiation progressed, as compared to children who were younger. CONCLUSION: Children receiving RT with audiovisual distraction while awake had small magnitudes of observed intrafraction movement, with minimal movement in >97 % of observed RT fractions. This study validates methods of anaesthesia avoidance using audiovisual distraction for selected children.

Training and education of pediatric radiation oncologists: A survey from the 2019 Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society meeting.

To examine the educational background, clinical practice, and preferences regarding continuing medical education (CME) among radiation oncologists who attended the 2019 meeting of the Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS), a survey consisting of 20 questions was distributed asking for demographic and educational background, clinical practice, and preferences regarding pediatric radiation oncology CME. Of 188 participants, 130 (69.2%) returned the questionnaire. More than 80% reported access to CT simulation, three-dimensional radiotherapy, and general anesthesia while <30% had access to intraoperative radiotherapy, proton, and heavy particle therapy. After residency, 12.1% did further training in pediatric radiation oncology. When asked about further training in pediatrics after residency, 88.8% answered that there should be a formal training program beyond residency in order to treat children. More than 75% acquired knowledge in pediatric radiation oncology through journals, books, live meetings, and tumor boards. The results of this survey may help Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS) in creating guidelines and recommendations for improvement in pediatric radiation oncology training and practice support as well as the development of CME activities most likely to benefit practitioners.

Minimizing General Anesthetic Use in Pediatric Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: At our institution, a multifaceted approach is used to reduce general anesthetic (GA) use for children receiving photon radiation therapy (RT) as standard-of-care treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of our methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated as part of the pediatric radiation therapy program from 2010 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. GA use was defined as need for intravenous propofol or inhaled gaseous anesthetic for at least 1 simulation or RT session. Methods to reduce GA use included presence of a dedicated pediatric nurse for procedural preparation, audiovisual distraction (television during RT), and 2-way audio communication with caregivers. RESULTS: There were 779 unique patients who received RT over 14 163 fractions of radiation. GA utilization was 90% in those under age 3, 28% in those age 3 to 6, 1% in those age 7 to 11, and <1% in those ≥12 years of age. Four years of age is a cutoff age at which the majority of patients switch from needing GA (56.6% for those aged 3) to not needing GA (29.8% for those aged 4). Younger age, use of total body irradiation, and craniospinal irradiation were independently associated with requiring GA. CONCLUSIONS: Using methods designed to reduce GA use, most children aged 4 years or older were able receive RT awake. Our GA rates compare favorably to other literature reports; thus, pediatric RT centers should consider adopting specific interventions to reduce GA use.